Comments

Comparing hurricane predictions with elections. One extension I have is that while the public assumed it would be close, the public (and all candidates?) still assumed it would be close but a Clinton victory, much like Obama's 2 wins vote-wise (not electoral-vote wise). Knowing it would be close, we should have taken the uncertainty even *more* serious. But even post-election we largely act as if Hillary screwed up a sure thing (combined with the narrative/myth that Bernie would have easily put this sucker away?)

Of course it should have been a sure thing. She was up against Donald [email protected]#$% Trump. Also the extant evidence strongly supports the theory that Bernie would have won relatively easily. Those who defend Clinton make it that much harder to unify Democrats in support of honest progressive economic populists who can lead the party out of the wilderness.

We all find it incomprehensible that Trump won an electoral college victory. But it is just as incomprehensible that Trump beat Kasich or Rubio or Bush. What ever appeal Trump had it was was larger than beating Hillary. /shrug Whatever. You just want to make it about Hillary. For you it's not really about anything but your hatred of Hillary.

You keep expressing your opinions as if they are universally acknowledged. I and many others think Sanders would have been destroyed in the general. I think the information available strongly supports that theory.

It's not about Hillary. There is disagreement about policy. For example I have several times explained exactly why I do not support Sanders single payer plan. If Hillary supported it I would still not support Sanders single payer plan. All else being equal I will vote against the primary candidate that supports Sanders single payer plan. I am not the only democrat that feels this way. Do you finally get that democrats are not going to unify on the Sanders policy agenda?

What evidence supports your conclusion that Apprentice would have defeated Sanders?

You are welcome to oppose single-payer and if you could identify a system that works better, I would oppose it in favor of that system too. But you can't because single-payer is cheaper and leads to better outcomes than any other health care delivery system that's been attempted.

I understand that plenty of Democrats made a wrong-headed choice in last year's primaries. How could I not understand that?

Do you understand that the Democratic brand is in the toilet? It's not just about the Presidency. It's about the House and the Senate and the Supreme Court and statehouses and governors' mansions. So how do we resuscitate the brand? History teaches us that when the Democratic Party champions economic justice it wins.

Edit to add: I didn't find it incomprehensible that Apprentice won. It shouldn't have happened but I wasn't particularly surprised. From my Bernie would be doing better, posted 7/27/16, "it sure looks like CNN is going to have lots of viewers chewing off their fingernails while watching Jake Tapper’s five o-clock shadow steadily lengthen throughout the early morning November 9."

What evidence do you have that a single Republican would vote for a non-Republican?

People don't vote "likeability" - they vote their tribe and possibly some special interests.

Let's look at swing states - Bernie got hammered in Florida, getting only 1/3 the vote vs. Hillary's 2/3. Yet Hillary still lost that state by 1%. No way Sanders would beat Trump there.

Pennsylvania - Hillary beat Bernie by 12 points. Donald beat her by just .75%. Would conservative mill workers rally around Arizona similar - she whacked Bernie by 15 points, but still lost to Trump by 3 points. Was Bernie preaching an anti-immigrant message I'm unaware of that would've carried Arizona?

Ohio. Sheesh. Semi-open primary and Berrnie loses by 13 points. Hillary loses in November by 8 points. Who are these supposed liberal leaning independents that were going to save Bernie's lunch vs. a bunch of angry white conservatives? North Carolina similar.

Bernie was somehow more popular than Hillary but still lost to her - but the independents who somehow didn't make a difference in the many open primaries he lost would somehow save him in the general election?

Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million. Perhaps Bernie would have won it by 5 million and still lost the electoral college? getting more votes in California and New York wouldn't help. Losing by a smaller margin in Pennsylvania and Ohio where Hillary campaigned extensively wouldn't help. Wisconsin and Michigan largely didn't matter.

We've seen Nate Silver describe all the ways that news pundits screwed up predictions, yet you don't care, you just keep pumping out this one dumb theory that Democratic popularity polls in May are definitieve for a November contest between the 2 parties. You don't even seem to realize that Hillary's poll advantage swung by 30 points several times, and that the polls were wildly inaccurate and failed multiple times for various basic structural reasons. But undeterred, you trot out these flawed theories over and over and over.

Whatever. I'm just not biting into the fictitious mythical Bernie future either. If he wants my vote, he has to grow up, put some details and dollars to his proposals, just like McCain is demanding of Republicans. Back to process, ya know?

She was a deeply unpopular nominee with deeply unpopular views. She lost crucial swing states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire. She eked out a tie in what was once a swing state - IA - and won the bitterly contested NV caucuses. On the campaign trail, she couldn't fill small rooms with supporters. Given those facts, it didn't take a rocket rocket scientist to figure out she was no shoo-in.

More from Bernie would be doing better - "the election is likely to be decided in the rust belt states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin where Sanders would almost certainly be stronger against Trump."

You're insane. Iowa was a fucking caucus, for God's sake. It's where activists go to send signals, not for an actual indicator of general elections. The whole country has gotten quite a bit more conservative and codified partisan in the last 20 years, thanks to Fox News, etc., but you don't address these bits. We've published the stat showing Fox propaganda probably added about 3 points to the GOP in 2004, 6 points in 2008, and likely more since, yet you throw out this "once a swing state" as if Hillary converted Iowa to the Republicans.

You point to Nate Silver yet ignore his reasoning, his doubts, his points on why he lucked out in 2012 but would be hard to repeat in 2016 (hint: undecided voters => uncertainty), etc. Here's a refresher course on Nate Silver for you.

How many times are we going to have the same conversations? You come here, attack Hillary, praise Sanders, in exactly the same way with exactly the same words and exactly the same arguments over and over and over again. Then I, or cville, or PP or etc. respond with the same arguments we've made a dozen times before.

You don't understand the democrats made the wrong choice. You believe it. You don't know Sanders would have done better. it's just your opinion. There're no do overs. Alternative histories are bullshit, just speculation. Every presidential elections half the pundits pick the democrat and half the pundits pick the republican. It's a zero sum game, half will always be right. I'm tired and bored by you and Michael Moore gloating over predicting Trump's "win." Not a single pundit predicted that Hillary would win the popular vote by 2% and 3 million votes but lose the electoral college by 78 thousand votes. I care as much about your and Moore's prediction as I care about you guessing a coin toss. Less actually because Moore thought Trump would win the popular vote and he was wrong. I think your prediction was based on nothing more than your hatred of Hillary. You accidentally became "right" because of an archaic undemocratic provision of the constitution not because you had any greater insight. Show me where you claimed Hillary would win the popular vote by a very convincing margin but lose the electoral college by less than 100 thousand votes and I'll be appropriately awed.

Every health care plan invented by man is better than a health care plan that will never be passed into law. I don't see any point in even discussing Sanders single payer plan. I've already explained why I think it will damage democrats election chances. There are many things I'd like to see passed. I'd like to see every religious tax exemption ended. I haven't written a blog on it explaining my reasoning because it's not going to happen. Not in the near or medium future. And it would hurt the party to try. You and Sanders can wish upon a star but I prefer a pragmatic approach to policy

I don't attempt to create messaging for the masses. I can't relate to people who don't read. I don't know how to talk to them so I certainly don't know what messages will sway their vote. I don't trust your proposed messaging either. You take what you believe is the best policy and than make up the reasons it will sell with the masses. In 08 democrats didn't just win the presidency, they won a large majority in the house and a super majority in the senate. They didn't prioritize economic justice any more than in the past and they certainly didn't advocate anything near the Sanders policy agenda. So clearly history teaches us that it takes other things or maybe more than championing economic justice to win.

I'm not going to write yet another book here. But I want to respond to this point:

In 08 democrats didn't just win the presidency, they won a large majority in the house and a super majority in the senate. They didn't prioritize economic justice any more than in the past and they certainly didn't advocate anything near the Sanders policy agenda.

Your recollection of 2008 is most incorrect. President Obama's campaign slogan was "hope and change." The hope was that there would be real change from the neoliberal/neocon policies that George W. Bush embraced. Obama promised genuine health care reform and actually did deliver to a significant degree - the ACA was his greatest accomplishment in my opinion - although the insurance companies remain firmly in conrol. Obama also argued that his health care proposal was more progressive than Hillary's.

Obama campaigned against NAFTA calling it "'devastating' and 'a big mistake'" on the campaign trail.

The fact that he had not voted for the war on Iraq provided him with a major advantage over Hillary.

Democrats took back the House and won a super-majority in the Senate because of a backlash against Bush's neolib/neocon policies that crashed the economy and began endless war in the Middle East. Since then, Democrats have been losing elections because, with a few exceptions, they have failed to change or even try to change those policies in meaningful ways.

It is an old and somewhat tiresome topic but even so, I think this is the very first time since before the election that I have entered into why I think Sanders would have won. First of all, recall that virtually everyone here said that they would vote for whoever was the Democratic nominee. That came up repeatedly. I believe it is correct and applies almost universally to the Democratic base. The Democratic base would vote for whoever headed the Democratic ticket. The Democratic base was far more just that, the Democratic base, than it was a Hillary base although it was enlarged somewhat by those who were excited about electing a woman. So, Sanders would have gotten virtually every vote that Hillary got because he would have headed the Democratic ticket. He would additionally have gotten every single vote that he actually did get in the primaries.

Secondly, Sanders had his own followers and fans who could not stomach Hillary. Right or wrong though they may have been in their dislike for her, that is universally considered to be a fact. So, every Sanders fan who either didn’t vote, or voted for a third party candidate, or even voted for Trump, represent additional votes that he would have gone to Sanders but did not go to Hillary. Additionally, every potential Sanders vote that went to Trump would have been lost to him if Sanders had been on the ticket so those votes count double towards flipping the results. And, I cannot help but believe that there were some Republicans and quite a few independents who would have voted for most any Democratic candidate over Trump who they could see, just like we could, that he was/is a disaster. Most any Democratic candidate that is except Hillary.

It is probably also true that even the DNC would have got behind Sanders if he had won the primaries though there is reason to suspect it would have been half hearted support. I do wonder if Hillary would have campaigned as hard for Sanders as he did for her.

I hear quotes of and analysis by 538 every time it is convenient to support a case. When someone brings in survey results that go against the popular case they get a lecture on understanding surveys. I suggest that every time 538 is quoted supporting Hillary apologists that it begin by saying, "Even though 538 was spectacularly wrong about the 2016 election, ... ...".

Bernie was a disaster when it came to garnering black votes. He was given a chance to explain how his policies would benefit the asthmatic child of a black woman who lived where politicians place a waste disposal center in her neighbor. Sanders flubbed the answer. In 1992, Bill Clinton showed empathy when asked a similar question.

​As of March 1, Sanders had 43% of the vote of African Americans under 30. Instead of fighting for black votes in the South where most blacks live, Sanders dismissed the South sending a message to older black voters that Sanders would not fight for blacks if he got elected.

You have posted this same comment, with slight variations, about one hundred times or maybe a thousand. Who's counting? In 2016 voters were looking for a big change, "change they could believe in" one might say. Hillary tried to connect with the working class, a major part of the traditional Democratic base, by saying that everyone who wasn't in her boat pulling for her were deplorable. A major political bono even if it had been correct. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe you were in the chorus which claimed loud and long that everyone had an obligation to vote and anyone who didn't vote for Hillary, or didn't vote at all, or who voted third party, was in fact voting for Trump. With that in mind are you saying by extension that if Sanders had been the Democratic standard bearer that blacks would have met their civic obligation by voting for Trump or would they have ducked their obligation and, in affect, voted for Trump by not voting at all because Sanders had not reached out as specifically to them as you think he should have? Or, would they have voted intelligently for Sanders over Trump?

Bernie would not have gotten the black turnout that Hillary received. Do. I think people should vote? Yes. Do I think black turnout will be less if Democrats don't begin outreach to the black community in preparation for 2018? Yes. If we did a head to head comparison between Sanders and Obama today, Obama would win. If there is a head to head between say Kamala Harris and Sanders in 2020, Harris would win among black voters. The lack of enthusiasm for Sanders in the black community is entirely Sanders fault. Sanders never directly engaged with the black community.

Feel free to blame black voters for not having a Pavlovian response to Sanders. They think of Sanders as much as Sanders thinks of them. He botched a very simple question posed by a black mother on how his policy would impact her asthmatic child. He dismissed Southern black voters. Feel free to blame the black voters if turnout decreases. I send the same message about outreach because responses tend to be excuses. Democrats need to do black outreach. Sanders should have done outreach. Instead of acknowledging the lack of outreach, potential black voters are criticized. Perez and Sanders should have done down outreach in minority communities right after their outreach to whites. How difficult would that have been. Instead of calling for outreach to energize black voters, you criticize the folks who feel neglected.

You want me to lie to you and tell you that black voters would turn out for Sanders in great numbers. Sanders is not Obama. Hillary was campaigning with the mothers of black youth killed by police. She gave speeches about racial inequality. Sanders has been in Congress and the majority of the Congressional Black Caucus had detailed contact with him. The CBC knew Hillary.

I will be voting. I will try to get other people to vote. Black voters are not happy with how they are being treated by the Democratic Party. I fear that may result in decreased turnout. Few in the black community believe that Sanders really understands the impact of race. Both Clintons show empathy. Bill won the black vote. Hillary got the black vote. Hillary got the vote of most women. Hillary lost the vote of white women.

White voters elected Donald Trump. The majority of Trump's current support is white voters. Black voters will support the Democratic candidate in overwhelming numbers. Blacks are used to being blamed for loses. In most states, the Democratic Presidential candidate got the majority of the black over GW Bush in his second election. In Ohio, blacks voted for the Democrat 4:1 over GW Bush in Ohio.. Blacks voted overwhelmingly for the Democrat Kerry, yet they were blamed for the loss of the Presidency. 80% of blacks in Ohio voted for Kerry, yet they caused his loss. If the black vote is really that important, you might think about calling for outreach to show that their votes are important. We are witnessing a whitelash to the election of a black President. The pathology is not in the black community. Do some outreach.

If Trump is re-elected, it will be because white voters elected him. Work on things to encourage black voters the same way Democrats did outreach to white voters. Stop talking about the problems with so-called identity politics at a time when the white supremacist in the White House has a commission designed to suppress black votes nationally, jokes about, police abuse, and is taking time out of disaster release efforts, North Korea, etc.to openly attack black athletes.

I am repetitive because with all the racist crap going on, there is lack of attention to an important Democratic voting black. I sense disaster ahead. So go ahead, attack black voters for feeling neglected and under siege.A little outreach to say that Democrats are preparing to combating voter suppression by having aid set up a polling places and a national hotline might be helpful as one step.

i don't understand why it is so difficult to get this simple reality across. Do the same outreach you did for whites.

I think you and Hal will find this genre of fiction interesting. It's not the type of fiction I enjoy so I stopped reading your post at the point where you wrote, " why I think Sanders would have won." One thing I like about dagblog is the diversity of the posts, Haiku and other poetry, cooking and recipes, etc. But I really think that people who want to share their fantasy fiction or alternative history fiction should put it in the Creative Corner.

The enduring interest in the "what-ifs" of an Axis powers victory is viewed by some as the result of the resonance of related themes, for example, how ordinary individuals deal with the humiliation and anger of being dominated.

Perhaps this also explains the enduring interest in Sanders supporters creating fantasy alternative historical fiction. Perhaps it's a way for Sanders supporters to deal with the humiliation and anger of their idol being dominated by Hillary, especially since she's a women. This rather peculiar attachment to fantasy alternative history seems to be specific to Sanders supporters. There were no Bradley supporters writing fantasies about him after Gore's loss. Nor were there any Dean supporters imagining alternative histories after Kerry lost. This lends some credence to the hypothesis that this attachment to creating fantasy fiction is being used as a defense mechanism to deal with the humiliation and anger of their idol being dominated by a women. it's likely this is particularly emasculating for them in ways that previous losses in 04 and 2000 to men would not be.

I suspect this is short term. When the 2018 elections begin it's likely they'll let go of their fantasies and begin to re-enter the real world.

Part of your in-depth analysis of a comment you claim to have not read. You are way more of a fantasy fan than you claim to be. You no doubt fantasize that yours was an intelligent response that was to the point

No, it was an insulting response to comments by you and Hal for posting bullshit. I wasn't trying to be intelligent. Every word choice I made was deliberately insulting. That was my one and only goal.

Alternative history is bullshit. No one knows what would have happened if Sanders had won the primary. The fact is that you and Hal are writing very low quality alternative history. If you truly want to write alternative history you need to imagine not just what democrats might do but what republicans might do and how democrats might react to it. But that would just be a more complete more complex version of bullshit. We can't go back in time to see nor can we investigate an alternative reality.

But I do apologize that my writing wasn't clear enough for you to get that I was insulting you and Hal. I thought my comment was obvious but everyone has a different level of reading comprehension. I'll be more careful to write to your level when I reply to you.

It seems like Hal and luIu want to have a frank and honest conversation about who would have won the election if Sanders won the primary. I haven't really wanted to talk about it but Hal's brought it up over and over and over again. I avoided discussing it but clearly it's an important issue for some so let us get into it.

I can't see how a man who claimed it was a good thing for children to run around naked and touch each others genitals, said that reading articles about a 12 year old girl getting raped by 14 men appealed to him, thinks women having sex fantasize about being raped by 3 men, and thinks it's a good thing if teen girls have sex because it's less likely they'll get breast cancer could ever be elected president. But we just elected a man who bragged about grabbing women by the pussy so maybe sexual deviants like Trump and Sanders is the new norm for presidential candidates.

As I've said I don't know how to create messaging for the masses so hopefully an expert in crafting such messages like Hal will explain how this message will sway voters to vote for Sanders and democrats.

That's all you have to say Hal? You've been pushing and pushing and I've held back. You specifically asked me why I think Sanders would have lost several times and I've kept my mouth shut. Well you finally convinced me to tell you exactly why I think Sanders would have been destroyed by the republicans. Your have your alternate history fantasy that only tells the story of what you think democrats would have done if Sanders won. The blank in your fantasy has always been what the republicans would have done if Sanders had won.

This would have been just the beginning. Any asshole that writes in a publication for all to see that it is a good thing for children to run around naked and touch each others genitals, said that reading articles about a 12 year old girl getting raped by 14 men appealed to him, thinks women having sex fantasize about being raped by 3 men, and thinks it's a good thing if teen girls have sex because it's less likely they'll get breast cancer surely wrote much much more.

Sanders would have been clueless as how to explain his sex essays. All his attempts to explain the nuance would have fell on deaf ears. Trump would have brought it up at every rally and in every debate. Sanders wouldn't have just lost. It would have been a rout. Tell me oh master of the messaging for the masses how you would have explained it. Let's have that conversation you've been telling us for months you want to have. I'm finally ready. I won't hold back any more.

Search form

In the News

I have no idea or particular opinion about whether Garrison Keillor is guilty of anything, though it's always struck me as odd. But this somewhat but not quite illuminating article gums up the works a bit when taken as a part of a whole. The whole, of course, being accusations flying hither and yon with little if any explanation - even when they could stand some.

(THREAD) Yulya Alferova—ex-wife of Russian oligarch Artem Klyushin and a member of Trump's entourage in Moscow in 2013—is yet another witness who confirms, albeit inadvertently, Trump lied about what happened at the Ritz Moscow. The list of such witnesses is now very, very long. pic.twitter.com/BViILTZP67

On the hamster wheel of continual work, production and consumption, and Hebert Marcuse's.dreams.

[....] Marcuse did not live to see the 1980s, however [....] But his ideas lived on. In a 2004 essay for Harper’s magazine, for example, novelist and essayist Mark Slouka took to task the U.S. obsession with work [....]

One woman’s account of clandestine meetings, financial transactions, and legal pacts designed to hide an extramarital affair.....American Media, Inc., the publisher of the National Enquirer, had paid a hundred and fifty thousand dollars for exclusive rights to McDougal’s story ...David Pecker, AMI CEO, describes the President as “a personal friend... he never printed a word about Trump without his approval.”

Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

Was Trump diminishing the significance of the word treason, projecting onto the opposition (as he so often does) his own transgressions, by accusing Democrats of treason for not applauding him at the SOU?

Talking heads don't appear to have had much time to look at the details yet. Reporters are waiting on the formal announcement from Rod Rosenstein of the indictments. It is clear that they are directly related to Putin, not clear yet whether to the Trump administration.

A federal grand jury in the District of Columbia returned an indictment Friday against 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities accused of violating US laws to interfere with US elections and political processes [....]

[....] in a blow to President Donald Trump, the GOP plan to enshrine his four-part immigration framework came the furthest of any proposal from reaching the 60-vote margin needed for passage, failing by 39-60. A competing bipartisan agreement got rejected, 54-45, after a furious White House campaign to defeat it, including a Thursday veto threat.

WASHINGTON — Steve Bannon, who served as President Donald Trump’s chief strategist, was interviewed by special counsel Robert Mueller over multiple days this week, NBC News has learned from two sources familiar with the proceedings.

When a transgender woman told doctors at a hospital in New York that she wanted to breast-feed her pregnant partner’s baby, they put her on a regimen of drugs that included an anti-nausea medication licensed in Britain and Canada but banned in the United States.

Within a month, according to the journal Transgender Health, the woman, 30, who was born male, was producing droplets of milk. Within three months — two weeks before the baby’s due date — she had increased her production to eight ounces of milk a day [....]

President Trump endorsed a 25-cent gas tax hike to pay for infrastructure at a White House meeting this morning with senior administration officials and members of Congress from both parties, according to two sources with direct knowledge. Trump also said he was open to other ways to pay for infrastructure, according to a source with direct knowledge.